We shared our top laughs from the first page of that group last time it was posted. You chose not to defend any of those. You also chose not to defend any of your choice. You should sincerely ask yourself why. If you were honest with yourself, you would admit you've been lied to. These lists are propaganda designed to convince the soft minded that Trump is the bad guy (with the goal of them never reading or researching any of the claims.)

Prove to us you are better or admit you cant make a case for trump being a liar.

These folks are in denial, hence the anger. What if a good deal of what you were force fed and now believe was absolute nonsense? One possibility is that you would be very angry at anyone exposing your lie based life, and lash out at them. (Blue pill).

Prove to us you are better or admit you cant make a case for trump being a liar.

You look at that list, or you look at that recent op-ed of Trumps, and you see no lies. THat makes you a bigger liar than Trump, becasue Trump is aware that he's a complete and constant bullshitter.

Here, from that op-ed.

In practice, the Democratic Party’s so-called Medicare for All would really be Medicare for None," Trump wrote. "Under the Democrats' plan, today’s Medicare would be forced to die."

Tapper on Sunday interviewed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a proponent of Medicare for all who has been harshly critical of Trump’s op-ed.

“He said we are going to weaken Medicare coverage for the elderly. That is an outrageous lie,” Sanders told Tapper. “We expand coverage to include dental care, vision care and hearing aids.”

When I hear you claim that WaPos list of Trump lies is propaganda, basically asserting that you have absolutely no idea what a fact is, I can only feel sorry for you. THere are millions of right wingers, that are even less intelligent than you, who will say the lies are small, or that the lies are politics, "all politicians lie." But no you say "let's discuss," challenging me ? I don't engage, becasue facts are facts. And if we get in to analyzing anyone of Trumps lies, it plays in to Trumps strategy of overwhelming us with his bullshit.

Most single individual lies, are no worse than the worst lies other politicians tell. But with Trump it's all you get. 24/7.

What the fuck, you guys harp on "you didn't build that" (out of context), or "you can keep your doctor." Trump lies more than both of those combined on a typical day before breakfast. It's too much to keep track of.

-This is an absolute fact and has been proven already. Obamacare was meant to be the precursor to Medicare for all. The plans are designed VERY MUCH like Medicare advantage plans. Part of funding for Obamacare came from Medicare. Therefore people who have paid for a system (Medicare) were handed a bill for people who havent paid (Obamacare).

I'm sorry you were lied to by your corporate propaganda. Anything else you need clarified?

I agree, and Universities should be #2. We may need to take tenure power from State Universities and invest it in a board picked by the Governor/State Legislature, since the State is subsidizing it.

It would be sufficient to de-fund Departments of Oppressed Womyn, Enslaved Minorities, and perhaps Education. They breed 99+ % of SJW's and cause vast majority of idiocy on campuses. If you think about it, their name says that they get paid for causing trouble.

One, the flow to and from medicare relating to Obamacare are far more complicated than what you implied with your empty assertion.

But it's irrelevant, becasue those talking about medicare for all, are talking about something completely from the ACA with it's mandate. Medicare for all would increase the medicare tax rate, and everyone would be on medicare.

Obviously, if we were even to consider it. OR I should say, when we finally implement is, it will probably have supplemental policies provided as traditional insurance.

Wouldn't be easier for once in your life to admit it was a total lie designed to get the republican senior vote out in even higher numbers than usual ? TRy to slavage some small amount of self respect, and admit it. I guarantee most of the other dimbulbs would.

When the Left began talking about “hate speech” as being too dangerous to be allowed. Of course, since the Left also gets to define “hate speech,” it can designate any speech it doesn’t approve of as hate speech. And since they’ve decided that some speech is “too dangerous to be protected,” that means that “dangerous” speech is also fair game for censorship and retribution. And since they control what is defined as “dangerous speech,” they control the conversation. And Free Speech is effectively dead.

Feelings! Nothing more than feelings! I should get Marcus a teddy bear to snuggle for Christmas. And get APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch what he really wants: a gunnysack full of kittens and a ball peen hammer!

One, the flow to and from medicare relating to Obamacare are far more complicated than what you implied with your empty assertion.

As for the cuts, they come from eliminating a massive subsidy to private insurers and gradually reducing the rate of growth in payments to some providers. These changes, while not catastrophic for Medicare, are important. Under the ACA, the federal government will substantially reduce the amount it spends funding Medicare Advantage, which is privately administered insurance offered to Medicare beneficiaries. About one-quarter of Medicare recipients are enrolled in private Medicare Advantage. In theory, these plans are supposed to manage health care spending better than fee-for-service Medicare. But they don’t actually save the federal government any money. They cost, per patient, 14% more than traditional Medicare. (See Figure 3 of this fact sheet from the Kaiser Family Foundation. And see here for more.) The ACA eliminates this subsidy and pegs Medicare Advantage payments to quality metrics.

The second bunch of money that gets cut from Medicare under Obamacare comes from providers. Hospitals, home health agencies and others will see Medicare payments grow more slowly than they have in the past.

Medicare benefits will not change – in theory. However, providers who get paid less from Medicare in the future may be less inclined to accept Medicare patients, thereby reducing access. The frequently criticized Independent Payment Advisory Board, created by the ACA, could cut provider payments even more to keep the growth in Medicare spending under a benchmark. If Medicare per capita spending grows faster than a rate pegged to inflation and later GDP, IPAB will be empowered to recommend provider payment cuts. If Congress can’t find alternative ways to keep Medicare spending growth under the inflation or GDP benchmark, the IPAB recommendations will automatically go into effect. This too could reduce access. Bonus Medicare Advantage benefits – like free gym memberships – may go away.In exchange for these kinds of reductions in Medicare spending, funding for the program was bolstered in other ways by the ACA. Preventive care is now covered at 100% for Medicare beneficiaries and a gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage will slowly close under the law. Some Medicare beneficiaries, primarily wealthy Americans, will pay higher Medicare premiums and taxes under the ACA.

The idea, however, that the Affordable Care Act struck a dangerous blow to Medicare that will change the program in fundamental ways is untrue. Under the new law, Medicare will remain a wildly popular, public single-payer health insurance system that provides comprehensive coverage to millions of Americans.

As I said, the details are more complicated, and for such problems there are always solutions. No offense intended, but your assertions are political spin, and downright silly. . EVen if you were correct, and there weren't another side to it (which there is - just read), there is no reason it couldn't be fixed.

If you want to consider the ultimate SIMPLE FACT , and forgive me if it's too simple or too obvious, but Medicare already covers a huge percentage of our health care, that is when people over 65 are dying from heart disease, Cancer, or any one of the other myriad ways that every person eventually dies. This has to be way more than 70% of all "major medical" type health care spending. The kind we need insurance for.

It's a no brainer, to anyone with any sense, that our current insurance system for people under 65, is vastly inefficient and downright stupid compared to just having medicare cover whatever the other (I don't know the number is it 15% ? ) small fraction of all major medical expenditures. Yes, it would mean a large increase in medicare taxes, and a great reduction (to zero) in what many pay for shitty health care plans that don't cover everything, and that bankrupt people when they get really sick.

Medicare as we know it dying in favor of a medicare for all is NOT a lie.

Let me get this straight. A policy that doesn't exist yet, that is, a policy that could come to exist and be structured in an infinite number of different ways, negotiated by congress, can not be done in a way that doesn't damage another policy, even though a huge and powerful and growing interest group (old people) that votes, is deeply moved to politically support the well being of the latter policy.

This could just be the stupidest assertion of a supposed fact that I've ever heard on Patrick.net.

Let me get this straight. A policy that doesn't exist yet, that is, a policy that could come to exist and be structured in an infinite number of different ways, negotiated by congress, can not be done in a way that doesn't damage another policy, even though a huge and powerful and growing interest group (old people) that votes, is deeply moved to politically support the well being of the latter policy.

Medicare - for - all implies everyone is paying into it. You said this yourself multiple times.

Seniors have already paid into medicare. Why should they risk a good system for them which is already paid for?

So yeah, the only feasible way to have a medicare for all program would be for existing medicare funds intermingle w medicare for all funds. This is guaranteed hurt those who've already paid. History has shown this to be true w Obamacare.

Economies of scale only works if you have a reasonable assumption that the firm (or in this case gov't entity) is going to act like a profit seeking firm. Often the advantages of "economies of scale" are lost to inefficiency, outright corruption, and incompetence for government institutions. Just look at how the government has handled the VA.

Economies of scale only works if you have a reasonable assumption that the firm (or in this case gov't entity) is going to act like a profit seeking firm. Often the advantages of "economies of scale" are lost to inefficiency, outright corruption, and incompetence for government institutions. Just look at how the government has handled the VA.

If you have an inefficient bureaucracy, greater volume will only create a greater inefficient bureaucracy. Two weeks ago I heard on the radio, 30% of government workers are not at work at any given time for a variety of reasons. And I'm pretty sure, when they are at work, they are hardly working. Almost impossible to fire incompetent government workers, and yet they get early retirement with mega pensions for life.

My company is working with the Department of Education in California. One of my key contacts, a "web developer", hasn't been to work in 3 months. Supposedly out on "stress leave". So California is paying me to hire a developer so the work can be completed by me!

That is also the case with a California government employee we are acquainted with. Takes days off at will. This is why bigger governments are never welcome. Big governments are the greatest ripoffs ever.

Medicare - for - all implies everyone is paying into it. You said this yourself multiple times.

Seniors have already paid into medicare. Why should they risk a good system for them which is already paid for?

This is stupid and makes no sense. You might be right. Just as republicans didn't like Al Gore's idea, of a "lock box" for social security. If you give republicans a chance to fuck over the elderly, by spending their medicare, just to prove that single payer doesn't work, they would. Hell, they could probably get some big tax cuts out of the deal with the consequences blamed on the libruls.

But it's insanely stupid to think that the moneys brought in for medicare for people under 65, HAVE TO be commingled, and also have to be insufficient, therefore causing stealing from medicare. This makes no sense, even if you were right about the ACA doing that, which you aren't. You clearly didn't read through the balanced last link a gave.

But I will say this, I understand your instincts, but think a better analogy would be the way we keep lowering taxes, and then we are going to say we can't afford "entitlements" such as SS and medicare.

Maybe you're right. Medicare for all might just end up being another way for republicans to fuck over the democrats and the people, and say "I told you so" with their tax cuts and (at all costs democrats never get to do anything) ensuring a more solid rule by the corporations and the plutocracy.

Although unfortunately that also means the end of humanity. Oh, well. We had a good run.